I like my state. I like California Republicans. I think Californians in general, and particularly California Republicans, should have input into the national debate. Presidential candidates should care what Californians think. Republican presidential nominees should worry about what regular California Republican voters worry about, taxes, illegal immigration, excessive government regulations, out of control government spending, things like that.
Except they don’t.
Republican presidential nominees worry about steel tariffs for Pennsylvania, Medicare Part D for Florida seniors, Iowa ethanol subsidies, and Wisconsin milk price supports. The only immigration they worry about is Cuban immigration. Presidential candidates spend a lot of time and money talking to the people of Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa, and Pennsylania, but the only time they show up in California is to large fundraisers in Irvine, Hollywood, San
Francisco or San Diego. Obama and McCain collected over $150,000,000 from hard working Californians in 2008, but John McCain’s advertising budget in California in 2008 was less than $3,500. In fact, every Republican in the Assembly and Senate spent more to win their seat than McCain/Palin spent on the entire state. Obama did a little better. He spent about $25,000. California is the national ATM for presidential candidates, who take our money, and spend it in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
We know the reason: California’s 55 electoral votes are reliably Democrat so there’s no reason for the national GOP – or our presidential nominees – to invest in the state. California is the largest state in the union, with the sixth largest economy in the world and the fastest growing Latino electorate in the nation. And yet, other than fundraisers, McCain and Obama never made one campaign stop in the state in the post convention general election campaign.
Unfortunately, 98% of presidential campaign spending occurs in just 15 battleground states – leaving California Republicans as mere spectators. California donors get some attention, but those GOP donors spend their money to build GOP infrastructure in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, while our legislative majorities shrink. California’s current method of awarding its electors in California elections is hurting California in general, and hurting the California GOP in particular. That is why I support the National Popular Vote
Grounded in powers our founders granted to states over how to allocate electoral votes, it is an interstate compact in which the states in the compact agree to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in 50 states once the number of participating states together have enough electoral votes to elect a president. It preserves the Electoral College, a valuable institution in my opinion, and state control of the election process. It avoids the inflexibility that a constitutional amendment would impose and protects the rights of the powers of the individual states.
National Popular Vote has passed in 31 legislative chambers in 21 states, in many states with conservative authors and conservative votes. Senate Republicans in New York voted 22-5 for National Popular Vote, including 20 legislators endorsed by the Conservative Party. Since a great majority of the conservatives in many states see what California conservatives see, they are choosing to try and change the rules of the game so that Presidential candidates start to listen to them, no matter what state they live in.
Presidential candidates – including conservatives – pander to states like Iowa by promising to support their ethanol subsidies while the fate of Central Valley families impacted by the water shortage are ignored. They worry about Cuban immigrants, because Cubans in Florida make a difference in who wins the election, but ignore the great burdens that illegal immigration imposes on California taxpayers. Our current presidential campaigns are regional campaigns to battleground states on the issues that concern those regions. National issues are often secondary considerations. Most of us are just left on the sidelines to cheer on our candidate, without any real attention to the issues that concern us.
California should not be the ATM for battleground states. National Popular Vote would compel national Republicans and our presidential nominee to invest in California and its vote-rich electorate, building infrastructure to give GOP candidates a better chance to make their case statewide.
I have spent some time trying to figure out how to make California relevant again in presidential campaigns. While National Popular Vote is paying me to help them promote the idea across the country, my name, my reputation and my beliefs are not for sale. I believe this is the best way to to make California relevant, constitutionally, policy-wise, and politically. Former Senator Jim Brulte agrees with me, and we have joined with former Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian to promote National Popular Vote because it’s good for Republicans and good for California.